+Quantum Security
---+Quantum Security Policy
---+Quantum Risk Governance
---+Data Shelf-Life Classification for Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Prioritization
------+Long-Lived Data Identification
---+Cryptographic Agility Risk Assessment (CARA)
------+Cryptographic Exception Register
------+Compensating Controls for Quantum-Vulnerable Systems
------+Crypto Agility Maturity Assessment
---+Harvest Now, Decrypt Later (HNDL) Mitigation
---+Post-Quantum Cryptography Agility Plan (PQCAP)
------+Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Transition Planning & Hybrid Mode Support
------+Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Migration Progress Oversight
------+Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Supply Chain Visibility
------+Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Supply Chain Flow-Down Requirements
---+Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Discovery & Visibility
------+Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Asset Inventory
------+Post-Quantum Cryptography Exposure
---+Quantum Threat Intelligence Monitoring
------+Collaboration & Information Sharing
---+Crypto-Agility Architecture
------+Entropy Source & Random Bit Generation
------+Stateful Hash-Based Signatures for Firmware & Code Signing
------+Approved Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Algorithm Use
------+Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Validation Requirements
------+Deprecated Cryptographic Algorithms
------+Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Key Management
------+Quantum-Safe Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Transition
------+Algorithm Negotiation Integrity
------+Hybrid / Composite Cryptography
------+Cryptographic Application Programming Interface (API) Abstraction
---+Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Implementation Validation & Interoperability Testing
|
Quantum Security
Security, Compliance & Resilience (SCR) PrinciplesMitigate quantum-enabled cryptographic risks through governance structures that operationalize Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) risk management practices.
Principle IntentOrganizations identify, assess and mitigate risks associated with Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computers (CRQCs), including risks that may render legacy cryptographic mechanisms ineffective, through cryptographic inventory, prioritization, migration planning and cryptographic agility.
1. Oversigt
| Titel |
Standard |
|
Quantum Security Policy
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to establish a formal, documented quantum security policy that:
(1) Conveys executive management's intent;
(2) Provides organizational direction and expected behaviors;
(3) Is reviewed at least annually; and
(4) Is updated, as necessary, to adapt to evolving risks, threats and other changes that affect the organization.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Reference NIST PQC standards in cryptography policy
∙ Note: Standalone quantum security policy may not be required at this size
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Addendum to existing cryptography policy covering quantum risks
∙ NIST PQC reference (https://csrc.nist.gov/pqc)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal quantum security policy
∙ Annual review cycle aligned to NIST PQC updates
∙ Integration with cryptography standard
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Standalone quantum security policy with executive approval
∙ Annual review and update cycle
∙ Alignment to NIST PQC, NSA CNSA 2.0 and CISA PQC guidance
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise quantum security policy with board endorsement
∙ Alignment to NIST, NSA, CISA, and applicable regulatory guidance
∙ Integration with security policy framework
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ Quantum security risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
Level 3 Well Defined
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain QTS domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with QTS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to establish a formal, documented quantum security policy that:
(1) Conveys executive management's intent;
(2) Provides organizational direction and expected behaviors;
(3) Is reviewed at least annually; and
(4) Is updated, as necessary, to adapt to evolving risks, threats and other changes that affect the organization.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
Quantum Risk Governance
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to establish an executive-sponsored quantum risk governance structure that institutionalizes quantum risk in the same manner as other enterprise risks by:
(1) Assigning a named migration lead with defined authority; and
(2) Treating quantum risk as a standing agenda item in Board of Directors and/or executive leadership meetings.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Awareness of NIST PQC standards (https://csrc.nist.gov/pqc)
∙ Note: Formal quantum risk governance may not be cost-effective at this size; monitor NIST guidance
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Designate a named lead responsible for tracking PQC developments
∙ NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography standards awareness (https://csrc.nist.gov/pqc)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Designated quantum migration lead within CISO function
∙ NIST PQC standards alignment
∙ Include quantum risk in enterprise risk register
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Executive-sponsored quantum risk governance structure
∙ Named migration lead with defined authority
∙ NIST PQC and NSA CNSA 2.0 alignment
∙ Quantum risk as standing agenda item in executive meetings
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Board-level quantum risk governance structure
∙ NIST PQC standards and NSA CNSA 2.0 alignment
∙ Dedicated PQC migration program team
∙ Quantum risk integrated into enterprise risk management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Quantum Security (QTS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with QTS domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ Quantum security risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with QTS domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers). Encryption inventories are limited.
▪ Inventories may be manual (e.g., spreadsheets) or automated.
Level 3 Well Defined
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain QTS domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with QTS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to establish an executive-sponsored quantum risk governance structure that institutionalizes quantum risk in the same manner as other enterprise risks by:
(1) Assigning a named migration lead with defined authority; and
(2) Treating quantum risk as a standing agenda item in Board of Directors and/or executive leadership meetings.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
Data Shelf-Life Classification for Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Prioritization
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to classify Technology Assets, Applications, Services and Data (TAASD) by confidentiality shelf-life and use that classification as a direct input to Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) migration prioritization, including prioritizing data with a shelf-life exceeding the expected PQC arrival horizon.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Identify records that must stay confidential for many years (e.g., legal, health, financial) and note them for PQC priority
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Identify data with long-term confidentiality requirements (e.g., legal, financial, health records)
∙ Flag for priority PQC protection
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data classification extended to include confidentiality shelf-life dimension
∙ Prioritize PQC migration for long-lived sensitive data
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal data shelf-life classification taxonomy
∙ Integration with data catalog and PQC migration prioritization
∙ Policy-driven PQC protection for long-lived data
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Automated data shelf-life classification
∙ Integration with enterprise data catalog and PQC migration roadmap
∙ Continuous monitoring of long-lived data for PQC readiness
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Quantum Security (QTS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with QTS domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on quantum security-related risk.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain QTS domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with QTS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to classify Technology Assets, Applications, Services and Data (TAASD) by confidentiality shelf-life and use that classification as a direct input to Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) migration prioritization, including prioritizing data with a shelf-life exceeding the expected PQC arrival horizon.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
Cryptographic Agility Risk Assessment (CARA)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to perform a Cryptographic Agility Risk Assessment (CARA) that analyzes Technology Assets, Applications, Services and Data (TAASD) to:
(1) Identify TAASD most vulnerable to quantum-enabled cryptanalytic threats; and
(2) Prioritize TAASD based on potential business impact.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ List where encryption is used (website TLS, VPN, email, backups) and note quantum-vulnerable algorithms (RSA, ECC)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Inventory of cryptographic algorithms in use
∙ Identification of quantum-vulnerable algorithms (RSA, ECDSA, DH)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Structured CARA aligned to NIST guidance
∙ Asset-level mapping of cryptographic algorithm use
∙ Prioritization by business impact
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal CARA process aligned to NIST IR 8547 or equivalent methodology
∙ Integration with risk register and PQC migration planning
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise CARA program with automated cryptographic discovery
∙ NIST IR 8547 methodology implementation
∙ Integration with GRC platform and PQC migration roadmap
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Quantum Security (QTS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with QTS domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on quantum security-related risk.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ Quantum security risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain QTS domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with QTS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to perform a Cryptographic Agility Risk Assessment (CARA) that maps Technology Assets, Applications, Services and Data (TAASD) to:
(1) Identify TAASD most vulnerable to quantum-enabled cryptanalytic threats; and
(2) Prioritize TAASD based on potential business impact.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
Harvest Now, Decrypt Later (HNDL) Mitigation
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to mitigate Harvest Now, Decrypt Later (HNDL) risk by minimizing an adversary's ability to collect long-lived data through Zero Trust Network Architecture (ZTNA) that enforces:
(1) Continuous authentication;
(2) Data microsegmentation;
(3) Least privilege; and
(4) Identity-based access control.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Ensure TLS 1.3 is enforced for sensitive data in transit
∙ Note: Full HNDL mitigation via ZTNA is typically not feasible at this size
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Enforce TLS 1.3 for all sensitive communications
∙ Minimize external exposure of long-lived sensitive data
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ TLS 1.3 enforcement across all external-facing services
∙ Data access minimization practices
∙ Zero Trust Network Architecture (ZTNA) planning
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Zero Trust Network Architecture (ZTNA) implementation
∙ TLS 1.3 enforcement with forward secrecy
∙ Identity-based access controls for sensitive data
∙ Data microsegmentation
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise ZTNA platform (e.g., Zscaler, Netskope, Palo Alto Prisma Access)
∙ Continuous authentication enforcement
∙ Data microsegmentation with identity-aware access
∙ HNDL risk monitoring and response program
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Quantum Security (QTS) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with QTS domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain QTS domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with QTS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to mitigate Harvest Now, Decrypt Later (HNDL) risk by minimizing an adversary's ability to collect long-lived data through Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) that enforces:
(1) Continuous authentication;
(2) Data microsegmentation;
(3) Least privilege; and
(4) Identity-based access control.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
Post-Quantum Cryptography Agility Plan (PQCAP)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to develop a risk-prioritized Post-Quantum Cryptography Agility Plan (PQCAP) that:
(1) Enables cryptographic agility;
(2) Aligns with evolving security standards; and
(3) Defines the approach for selecting and implementing PQC algorithms.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Simple PQC plan: rely on vendors (browsers, cloud, VPN) enabling PQC; track vendor announcements
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Basic PQC transition roadmap aligned to NIST PQC standards
∙ NIST PQCAP guidance (https://csrc.nist.gov/pqc)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Documented PQCAP aligned to NIST standards
∙ Risk-prioritized migration roadmap
∙ Integration with enterprise risk management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal PQCAP with executive sponsorship
∙ Risk-prioritized migration with milestones
∙ NIST PQC and NSA CNSA 2.0 alignment
∙ Annual plan refresh
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise PQCAP with board visibility
∙ Dedicated PQC program office
∙ NIST, NSA CNSA 2.0, and CISA PQC guidance alignment
∙ Integration with enterprise architecture and GRC
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain QTS domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with QTS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to develop a risk-prioritized Post-Quantum Cryptography Agility Plan (PQCAP) that:
(1) Enables cryptographic agility;
(2) Aligns with evolving security standards; and
(3) Defines the approach for selecting and implementing PQC algorithms.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Discovery & Visibility
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to gain situational awareness into the organization's current cryptographic landscape through a formal discovery process that uses a combination of:
(1) Automated tools; and
(2) Manual techniques.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Manual list of where cryptography is used (TLS certificates, VPN, encrypted backups, email)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Manual cryptographic algorithm inventory
∙ Free scanning tools for common quantum-vulnerable implementations
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Automated cryptographic discovery tools
∙ Cryptographic inventory as part of vulnerability management
∙ NIST guidance on cryptographic discovery (https://csrc.nist.gov/pqc)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Automated cryptographic discovery and inventory platform
∙ Integration with asset management and vulnerability scanning
∙ Regular cryptographic posture reporting
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise cryptographic discovery platform
∙ Continuous cryptographic inventory maintenance
∙ Integration with GRC, asset management, and SIEM
∙ Automated quantum exposure reporting
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain QTS domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with QTS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to gain situational awareness into the organization's current cryptographic landscape through a formal discovery process that uses a combination of:
(1) Automated tools; and
(2) Manual techniques.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
Quantum Threat Intelligence Monitoring
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain an ongoing quantum threat intelligence function that monitors:
(1) Cryptanalytic threat developments;
(2) Quantum computing capability advances; and
(3) NIST and/or regulatory updates to approved algorithm lists.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Subscribe to NIST and CISA PQC update notifications (https://csrc.nist.gov/pqc)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ NIST and CISA PQC update subscriptions
∙ Relevant industry group newsletters or alerts
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Dedicated quantum threat intelligence monitoring
∙ NIST, CISA, and NSA PQC guidance tracking
∙ Industry-specific quantum security working groups
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Quantum threat intelligence function within threat intelligence program
∙ Monitoring of cryptanalytic advances and quantum computing milestones
∙ NIST algorithm update tracking
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Dedicated quantum threat intelligence capability
∙ Monitoring of academic, regulatory, and vendor quantum developments
∙ Integration with enterprise threat intelligence platform
∙ Regular quantum threat briefings to leadership
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain QTS domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with QTS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to maintain an ongoing quantum threat intelligence function that monitors:
(1) Cryptanalytic threat developments;
(2) Quantum computing capability advances; and
(3) NIST and/or regulatory updates to approved algorithm lists.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
Crypto-Agility Architecture
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to validate design-level cryptographic agility across protocols, libraries, kernels and hardware to ensure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) can support larger Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) key, signature and ciphertext sizes.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Prefer cloud services and software that support algorithm updates without redesign
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Use cloud-native cryptographic services with configurable algorithm support
∙ Avoid hardcoded cryptographic algorithm dependencies
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Design systems for cryptographic algorithm replaceability
∙ Crypto-agility requirements in architecture reviews
∙ Abstraction of cryptographic operations from application logic
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Crypto-agility architecture validation in design reviews
∙ Cryptographic abstraction layer requirements
∙ Support for PQC key and signature sizes in protocols and libraries
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise crypto-agility architecture program
∙ Formal agility validation across protocols, libraries and hardware
∙ Cryptographic abstraction APIs enforced organization-wide
∙ Automated architecture compliance checking
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain QTS domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with QTS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to validate design-level cryptographic agility across protocols, libraries, kernels and hardware to ensure Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) can support larger Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) key, signature and ciphertext sizes.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) Implementation Validation & Interoperability Testing
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to validate that each Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) implementation:
(1) Meets functional and cryptographic requirements;
(2) Is interoperable with counterparties and successors;
(3) Meets performance criteria for its use case; and
(4) Documents test results and exceptions.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Use vendor-validated PQC implementations only (no custom cryptography)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Verify PQC implementations using NIST test vectors (https://csrc.nist.gov/pqc)
∙ Use FIPS 140-3 validated modules where available
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ PQC implementation testing using NIST test vectors
∙ Interoperability testing with key counterparties
∙ FIPS 140-3 validated module requirement
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal PQC implementation validation program
∙ Interoperability testing with counterparties and successors
∙ Performance testing for PQC use cases
∙ Test result documentation
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise PQC implementation validation framework
∙ Automated test vector validation
∙ Continuous interoperability testing with ecosystem partners
∙ Third-party validation for critical implementations
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Quantum Security (QTS) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with QTS domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with QTS domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain QTS domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with QTS domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to validate that each Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) implementation:
(1) Meets functional and cryptographic requirements;
(2) Is interoperable with counterparties and successors;
(3) Meets performance criteria for its use case; and
(4) Documents test results and exceptions.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Referencer
1.2 Identificerede krav
1.3 Relaterede reguleringer
2. Identificerede krav
3. Relaterede reguleringer
Reguleringer
| Kilde |
Regulering |
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|